Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-608 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Substantial impairment entitling buyer to revoke his acceptance of goods under UCC § 2-608(1). 38 A.L.R.5th 191.

Ark. L. Notes.

Looney, The Toothless Cow, the Little Bull That Couldn't, and Udder Matters: Livestock Warranties and the Uniform Commercial Code, 1990 Ark. L. Notes 75.

Ark. L. Rev.

Uniform Commercial Code — Buyers' Remedies After Acceptance, 20 Ark. L. Rev. 409.

Legislative Note — Act 462 of 1973: Three Day “Cooling-Off” Period for Home Solicitation Sales, 27 Ark. L. Rev. 571.

Commercial Law — The Effect of the Seller's Right to Cure on the Buyer's Remedy of Rescission, 28 Ark. L. Rev. 297.

Notes, Ozark Kenworth, Inc. v. Neidecker: A Buyer's Continued Use of Goods After Revocation of Acceptance, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 857.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Note, Arkansas's New Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act — A Branch of Hope For Lemon Owners, 16 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 493.

Case Notes

Cure of Defects.

The seller does not have an unlimited time within which to cure the nonconformity; it must be cured seasonably. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).

Evidence supported finding that the buyers had not afforded the manufacturer a reasonable time to cure defects in mobile home. Rhode v. Kremer, 280 Ark. 136, 655 S.W.2d 410 (1983).

Evidence.

Upon the evidence presented, there was no revocation of acceptance under this section. Hudspeth Motors, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 238 Ark. 410, 382 S.W.2d 191 (1964), overruled on other grounds, Stimson Tractor Co. v. Heflin, 257 Ark. 263, 516 S.W.2d 379 (1974).

Question of whether buyer was entitled to revoke acceptance of truck based on seller's assurances that any nonconformity would be seasonably cured should have been presented to jury where evidence presented factual issue as to the existence of a latent defect in the truck and the making of repairs and assurances by the seller to the effect that the truck was repairable. Gramling v. Baltz, 253 Ark. 352, 485 S.W.2d 183 (1972).

Evidence sufficient to support revocation of acceptance of a mobile home on nonconforming product grounds. Frontier Mobile Home Sales, Inc. v. Trigleth, 256 Ark. 101, 505 S.W.2d 516 (1974).

Guarantees.

A guarantee may have limited the seller's other warranties provided for by this chapter, but it in no way can be construed to have foreclosed a buyer's right to revoke her acceptance within a reasonable time of the discovery of nonconformity of the goods. O'Neal Ford, Inc. v. Early, 13 Ark. App. 189, 681 S.W.2d 414 (1985).

Nonconforming Goods.

The concept of nonconformity includes not only breaches of warranties but also any failure of the seller to perform according to his obligations under the contract; it is thus apparent that breach of warranty and nonconformity are not entirely congruent concepts, the former being a subset of the latter. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).

A buyer's right to revoke his acceptance of goods is conditioned upon the nonconforming character of the goods; if goods conform to the contract and the buyer has accepted them, the buyer does not have a right to revoke his acceptance. Watson v. Miears, 772 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1985).

The plaintiff properly revoked its acceptance of 521 out of 828 cases of frozen chicken where the plaintiff's representatives testified that the defendant assured them that the chicken was all split breasts and no more than 6 to 8 months old and it was later discovered that 521 of the cases were pieces, rather than split breasts, and were over a year old. Grand State Mktg. v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 63 Ark. App. 123, 975 S.W.2d 439 (1998).

Questions of Fact.

The question whether goods are nonconforming and whether a revocation of acceptance was given within a reasonable time are questions of fact. O'Neal Ford, Inc. v. Early, 13 Ark. App. 189, 681 S.W.2d 414 (1985).

Whether goods are conforming is a question of fact. Watson v. Miears, 772 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1985).

Remedies.

A buyer is not required to elect between revocation of acceptance and recovery of damages for breach of warranty. Stimson Tractor Co. v. Heflin, 257 Ark. 263, 516 S.W.2d 379 (1974).

The buyer's options of revocation of acceptance under § 4-2-711 and recovery of damages for breach of warranty under § 4-2-714 are two separate and distinct strands of remedies under the UCC (subtitle 1 of this title) and the buyer may pursue either remedy or both since they offer separate forms of relief. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).

Buyer was not permitted the return of its purchase price in addition to retaining purchased equipment under a breach of contract or breach of warranty theory. Microsize, Inc. v. Ark. Microfilm, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 49, 780 S.W.2d 574 (1989).

If the buyer does not reject the goods or timely revoke acceptance, he will be obligated to pay the balance due on the contract price and will be limited to the recovery of damages for breach of warranty. Microsize, Inc. v. Ark. Microfilm, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 49, 780 S.W.2d 574 (1989).

Rescission.

The purchaser of a vending machine business upon the seller's representation as to past profits did not waive his right to rescind the purchase for fraud in such representations by making two installment payments on the purchase price after he discovered profits were substantially less than as represented by the seller where the seller assured him that business would improve if given time, especially with the arrival of summer. Parker v. Johnston, 244 Ark. 355, 426 S.W.2d 155 (1968).

Action to rescind contract on grounds of nonconformity should be treated as “revocation of acceptance” under this section, since the Uniform Commercial Code does not use, in most instances, the term “rescission” and the terms amount to the same thing under the Code. Hughes v. Brown, 1 Ark. App. 171, 613 S.W.2d 848 (1981).

Return of Defective Goods.

Buyer's refusal to tender return of drilling rig when he filed complaint to obtain revocation of sale and his continued refusal to return pipe and other accessories did not prevent him from revoking his acceptance, as tender of goods purchased is not a condition of rescission under this section. Snow v. C.I.T. Corp. of South, Inc., 278 Ark. 554, 647 S.W.2d 465 (1983).

This section does not specifically state that revoked goods are to be returned to the seller; however, the comments to this section assume the goods will be returned. Microsize, Inc. v. Ark. Microfilm, Inc., 29 Ark. App. 49, 780 S.W.2d 574 (1989).

Substantial Impairment of Value.

Where a farmer bought a tractor for use at certain times of the year and to cope with certain soil and weather conditions, but the farmer was deprived of the use of the tractor during those critical periods due to a combination of factory and service-related defects, the tractor's nonconformity under the sales contract substantially impaired the value of the tractor to the farmer and was sufficient to warrant the farmer's revocation of acceptance. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).

Where drilling rig, purchased upon seller's representation that it was superior to older model, proved to be slower than old model, was constantly in need of repairs and needed major modifications dealing with operational efficiency, buyer was entitled to revoke his acceptance of rig because its nonconformity substantially impaired its value to him. Snow v. C.I.T. Corp. of South, Inc., 278 Ark. 554, 647 S.W.2d 465 (1983).

Time of Revocation.

Revocation held to have been made within a reasonable time. Frontier Mobile Home Sales, Inc. v. Trigleth, 256 Ark. 101, 505 S.W.2d 516 (1974); Hughes v. Brown, 1 Ark. App. 171, 613 S.W.2d 848 (1981); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harper, 671 F.2d 1117 (8th Cir. 1982).

Revocation held not to be within a reasonable time. Stimson Tractor Co. v. Heflin, 257 Ark. 263, 516 S.W.2d 379 (1974).

Consumers rightfully revoked acceptance of an automobile purchase contract, and were properly awarded both compensatory and punitive damages, even though they had been driving the car almost two years, where the revocation occurred immediately after the consumers discovered that the car, sold as new, had previously been in a wreck and repainted. Wheeler Motor Co. v. Roth, 315 Ark. 318, 867 S.W.2d 446 (1993).

Use of Goods.

Continued attempts of a buyer to use a combine with tires too narrow for use in his fields, although assured by the seller that it would give him satisfaction, and procurement of repairs on the combine by the seller's employees after his discovery that the combine was not suited for use in his fields, amounted to an exercise of ownership over the combine inconsistent with revocation of his acceptance of the machine. Ingle v. Marked Tree Equip. Co., 244 Ark. 1166, 428 S.W.2d 286 (1968).

A waiver does not necessarily result when a buyer continues to use an article following repairs by the seller. Gramling v. Baltz, 253 Ark. 352, 485 S.W.2d 183 (1972).

In action by seller of panels for price of last shipment in which buyer counterclaimed for damages caused by the fact that the panels were of a lighter weight than that ordered, the issue was not acceptance or rejection, but revocation of acceptance, and use of the last shipment despite knowledge of its unsuitability did not bar counterclaim for damages for nonconformity of the original shipment. Jones v. Atkins, 254 Ark. 472, 494 S.W.2d 448 (1973).

The continued use of the goods by a buyer does not necessarily cancel a prior rejection where the seller had wrongfully refused to accept the buyer's rightful rejection; the issue of waiver of revocation is determined on a case by case basis, with the reasonableness of post-revocation use being the underlying consideration, taken in conjunction with a consideration of all the other elements necessary to effect a justifiable revocation. Ozark Kenworth, Inc. v. Neidecker, 283 Ark. 196, 672 S.W.2d 899 (1984).

Cited: Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093, 449 S.W.2d 922 (1970); Dopieralla v. Ark. La. Gas Co., 255 Ark. 150, 499 S.W.2d 610 (1973); Hanna Lumber Co. v. Neff, 265 Ark. 462, 579 S.W.2d 95 (1979); McFall Chevrolet Co. v. Collins, 271 Ark. 469, 609 S.W.2d 118 (1980); Mitcham v. First State Bank, 333 Ark. 598, 970 S.W.2d 267 (1998).